Blasphemy and weakness.

1235»

Comments

  • Or in schools? The free speech brigade seem to ignore context.

    I was twelve when our rather stern headmaster was our substitute English teacher for the day. We were reading "Educating Rita" in class, and sure enough, about five minutes in, one of my classmates got the first "fuck" of the day. We could see a look of mild panic in his eyes as he realized that he was about to be called on to say "fuck" in front of the headmaster, but he went for it. At the end of the class, the headmaster congratulated us for reading the script as written, and neither getting silly about the word, nor trying to bowdlerize it.

    That anecdote aside, I don't think you are fairly characterizing Russ's position. His position certainly admits subcultures (such as schools and other children's activities) where coarse language isn't acceptable. I think his "free speech" challenge might be more closely exemplified by looking at the example of a parent who is walking with their children down the public High Street, and objects to crude language on a passer-by's t-shirt, or objects to the language that a group of teens chatting on a park bench are using, because their children might see / hear it.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    For real?

    (For clarification
    Bench talk and t shirt)
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    For real?

    (For clarification
    Bench talk and t shirt)

    At what are you expressing shock? At the idea that some people object to profanity in public? At the idea that other people object to people objecting to profanity in public?

    I think Russ's case is that the Muslims in this case are like the family that doesn't like profanity, and the cartoon-publishers are the people in the French Connection t-shirts. Russ would have us think that this is just a cultural difference between whether profanity is acceptable, and that the profanity-abhorers have no right to force their worldview on the public arena. @Russ - do you think this fairly describes your position?
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    The only way to merge both cultures in the public space is for each group to live and let live.
    Yes, seems like we could all do with a bit more "live and let live". But that phrase to me means that my taboos are not binding on you and vice versa. That we all decide for ourselves how we are going to live, and rein in our desire to tell others how they must live. That where there is asymmetry, the shared space has to be permissive rather than restrictive.
    A cultural claim that people should have free speech and the right to draw anything they like does not to me seem to be of the same order...

    ...I don't think in this case someone's desire not to read that word in print is of higher order than someone else's desire to use that word to express their dissatisfaction...

    You seem to be positing some sort of ordering or hierarchy of human desires. And proposing a rule that if one of my desires conflicts with one of yours, then the desire that is most fundamental, that has the higher place in your hierarchy, is the desire that should be permitted to be gratified.

    Which might be a workable basis for an ethic if such a hierarchy were genuinely objective or otherwise above the differences in culture.

    But it seems to me that it isn't.

    How do you propose to tell someone from New Hampshire ("live free or die") that the right to draw what you like isn't fundamental ? (*)

    How do you convince those who believe that God has spoken in some sort of revelation that the right to break His commandment is more fundamental than the right to uphold it ?

    Seems like you're trying to find a basis for judging fairly between the competing claims of people from different (sub)cultures.

    But based on these examples I don't think it works - however well-meaning your hierarchy, it is no more than your perspective informed by your culture.

    (* did I get the right state there?)
  • questioningquestioning Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    How do you propose to tell someone from New Hampshire ("live free or die") that the right to draw what you like isn't fundamental ? (*)

    (* did I get the right state there?)
    yes.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited April 9
    @Leorning Cniht to clarify

    I was somewhat shocked that anyone would think to reprimand youngsters on a public bench for swearing
    Yes

    As for the t shirt police , words fail me.

    The difference is that in a public setting we can all choose Not to walk past that bench. We can Not draw attention to an interestingly obnoxious t shirt , or see ahead of time and draw attention to something else. Basic parenting skills.

    But in a classroom one is a captive pupil plus power imbalance

    Hope that helps clarify?
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    @Leorning Cniht to clarify

    I was somewhat shocked that anyone would think to reprimand youngsters on a public bench for swearing
    Yes

    As for the t shirt police , words fail me.

    The difference is that in a public setting we can all choose Not to walk past that bench. We can Not draw attention to an interestingly obnoxious t shirt , or see ahead of time and draw attention to something else. Basic parenting skills.
    But we are not happy to accept such a solution with regard to e.g. racial or sexual harassment. If the youths were making racist or sexist comments rather than swearing, I think we would admire a passer-by who rebuked them rather than regarding them as interfering.

  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited April 9
    Even after living in a two major cities, my go-to response when faced with blatant racist and sexist language or actions in situations that you describe... has been to either Avoid and inform the police. Or engage rather than rebuke.

    Then again. I am older, which always helps. No one wants to be seen to be showing off in front of what could be their Grandma. Heavens. I could even Know their Grandma!

    Training in communication and engagement in challenging situations helps.

    “ you don’t mind if I just sit down for a bit do you?” then taking out some crocheting usually helps to disperse the crowd.

    Thing is
    In public do we as individuals really want to be going round enforcing behaviour?

    I ve only ever gone that far when there was danger to life and no hope of the police being able to intervene.

    FWIW I do think that whilst most youngsters are great, there are a few who find that negotiation to adulthood very difficult. I feel very sorry for them.
    But zero sympathy for the adult people who behave in the same manner.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited April 9
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    @Leorning Cniht to clarify

    I was somewhat shocked that anyone would think to reprimand youngsters on a public bench for swearing
    Yes

    As for the t shirt police , words fail me.

    The difference is that in a public setting we can all choose Not to walk past that bench. We can Not draw attention to an interestingly obnoxious t shirt , or see ahead of time and draw attention to something else. Basic parenting skills.
    But we are not happy to accept such a solution with regard to e.g. racial or sexual harassment. If the youths were making racist or sexist comments rather than swearing, I think we would admire a passer-by who rebuked them rather than regarding them as interfering.

    That’s because swearing is a language issue - acceptable to some and not others. Racial and sexual harassment are a totally different thing. Unless they are swearing at you, which is intimidation and harassment.

    People generally chatting and using swear words to each other may offend some people - just like crop tops and skimpy clothes, tattoos, piercings, wearing pyjamas to the supermarket - you name it - but they are not prohibited and should not be censured in any way. (What you think is, of course, entirely your business).

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Fall over backwards to what end though? Presenting it as "the only alternative to suppression" makes it sound like a tactic which doesn't seem quite right. Are we hoping that attitudes will change after a while? But I don't think that's what you mean, since you reject the term "catch up". Fall over backwards because their concerns are legitimate and correct? I would be prepared to consider this as a possibility but if that is the case then other religious and cultural groups are, I'd suggest, being unfairly neglected and should have their concerns treated as equally legitimate.

    The end is accommodation, tolerance, inclusion toward the ungraspable Holy Grail of equality of outcome. For all. The only way minority attitudes can change is if they feel secure. Which is up to the attitudes of the powerful. Making Muslims feel more secure at the expense of the white lower classes is self defeating. But the latter are most difficult to help. So in the mean time PC is where it's at.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited April 9
    In reference to the OP &
    before we all stray into “badly behaving yobs I have known”...

    In the OP situation mentioned, it is one group of people who adhere to a specific faith group, objecting to what happened in a school setting.

    Is it just me, or is there anyone else here who recalls those heady 1980 ish days of evangelical Christians objecting to school lessons?
    And surely I am not alone in enduring Mary Whitehouse in full battle cry?

    How did we as a country manage to negotiate from there to here ......For Christians?

    And is there any hope of a similar journey for other faith groups, equally upset?



    I dunno
    It s just that when @Boogie opened this thread, those days were what first sprung to mind
  • I would say that those sympathising with Mary Whitehouse were essentially told: "suck it up, your concerns are ridiculous, your attitude outdated and your religion on the way to the dustbin of history". But that is presumably not going to be the message here.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    @Leorning Cniht to clarify

    I was somewhat shocked that anyone would think to reprimand youngsters on a public bench for swearing
    Yes

    As for the t shirt police , words fail me.

    The difference is that in a public setting we can all choose Not to walk past that bench. We can Not draw attention to an interestingly obnoxious t shirt , or see ahead of time and draw attention to something else. Basic parenting skills.

    But in a classroom one is a captive pupil plus power imbalance

    Hope that helps clarify?


    In public settings we can't all choose. For some people it is very unpleasant, and even threatening, to be captive on a bus or a ferry or a train with groups of loud people, of whatever age, bawling obscenities, sometimes for hours. A public setting should ideally be a place where the public can remain unassaulted by unnecessary aural violence.

    As for 'not' walking past benches. Do you mean, as in hovering over it like a drone, or taking a half mile detour?! In all my many years of being a pedestrian my usual reason to walk past a bench is because I had to! But I like my teeth where they are (the few that remain) so I won't rush to reprimand anyone for swearing any time soon!

    To be honest, the language that I wince at most is the use of 'Jesus Christ' as an exclamation on TV, usually by various presenters, comedians/participants on panel shows etc. Ironically, that is technically blasphemy in my religion, but completely acceptable in our current culture. And my taking exception to it by those kind of public figures on mainstream TV would be considered as ludicrously eccentric. If I started demanding enquiries into its use, or for suspensions or sackings etc by the perpetrators I'd be laughed out of the UK.

  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Oh I get the upset caused.
    Totally.

    But in public , doesn’t such behaviour comes under public order / dis order action?

    Whilst the Opening Post was talking about a specific faith groups reaction after being upset about action in a school.

    To refer back to Ms Whitehouse et al, it s worth a look to read up what went on there. And for how long. In no way were people told to suck it up. God bless Prince Charles, he even sent his support for the festival of light....
    And
    The Outraged Evangelical London Parents was a thing too

    Istm that we have short memories
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Overall I kinda agree with @Boogie s conclusion in the opening post

    Just not quite sure how we get there!
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    edited April 9
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Added to note that some parts of this great, united and enlightened country of ours have moved on in the last thirty to forty years.
    But some areas / communities have yet to catch up.


    When I was a school child, offering debates concerning the holiness / sanctity /truth or otherwise, much less a cartoon of : Jesus / The Blessed Virgin Mary / God-in-general in a classroom would have brought equal wrath on the teacher and the school.
    From Christians.

    One of my primary schools had a new headteacher. He banned all colonial- type hymns and rejigged our RE lessons. Looking back, I shudder to consider what was deemed appropriate and am not going to even type them here.
    A whole lot of Othering and exploration of terminology that even as a primary school kid, left me feeling yukky.
    That was 1967.

    There was our dear departed RE teacher who was forced to Leave my first secondary school after introducing some edgy Christian theology in 1971. Can’t remember what unsound theology itwas though......

    Another asked to make a public apology in full school assembly for upsetting the Roman Catholic children. Apparently debating the virginity or otherwise of Mary was an unwise choice of material to use. Placards there were! Outside the RE dept! 1973.

    In many of our cities in the early 1980s evangelical Christians withdrew their children from first RE lessons and then the schools themselves. Letters Were Written. Interviews To The Media were given . Outrage at some school gates. There followed a surge in independent Christian schooling.
    I can’t speak to the reasons in any other than the area we lived, but on our patch it was merely acknowledging the very idea that everyone might Not be heterosexual.

    I could go on. But you get the drift.


    Grace, mercy and understanding might go a long way.

    Plus a deep dive into how we want schooling in this country to look.

    Given the outrage Back Then and the subsequent rash of independent and usually very evangelical Christian schools as a result , do we really want the same for children from Muslim communities?




    Deep apologies for this very long post

    [ahem]


    This colonial would like to know what constitutes a “colonial-type hymn”.....

    Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 9
    Ethne Alba wrote: »

    To refer back to Ms Whitehouse et al, it s worth a look to read up what went on there. And for how long. In no way were people told to suck it up. God bless Prince Charles, he even sent his support for the festival of light....
    And
    The Outraged Evangelical London Parents was a thing too

    Istm that we have short memories

    I think TurquoiseTastic might have meant that Whitehouse was mocked by people who were left-wing, liberal, hipsters, etc. And that a lot of the people who currently fit those labels(including surviving veterans of the 1970s battles) are now part of the contingent arguing on progressive grounds for suppression of anti-Muslim material.

    Whitehouse for me is someone from another era, who I know mostly through second-hand accounts and a snippet or two of news footage. To use some more current personalities, I'd wager that when John Cleese defended Life Of Brian against Malcolm Muggeridge, a hefty majority of the people who were a) born after 1945, b) humanities graduates, and c) Labour voters, were cheering for Cleese, and thought Muggeridge was just a useless old fossil who needed to piss off.

  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    @Sojourner , now I will have to go and look them up!

    I do remember that after telling my father that I didn’t like singing those hymns in school assembly he investigated our own hymn books at home. Then promptly burnt one copy, that came I think from a missionary Bible College in Bristol.

    Off the top of my head what I thought of as colonial type hymns included words like

    “Victory and death “ the boys pulled gruesome faces at each other during that one.

    Being asked to sing about “Rude Barbarians “ , seemed to me to be simply ... rude.

    There was something about hearing heathen nations cry.
    And lots about pagan priests

    “To arms! to arms! “seemed terrifying to this quiet shy little girl.
    As did Marching marching something to do with demonic powers

    Whilst the assumption that we all over here lived in The Light. Whilst over the seas in heathen lands They Lived In Darkness was, problematic to even an eight year old.

    I did get into terrible trouble for not singing one hymn but for the life of me I can’t remember which one

    Hope that helps?

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited April 9
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    In reference to the OP &
    before we all stray into “badly behaving yobs I have known”...

    In the OP situation mentioned, it is one group of people who adhere to a specific faith group, objecting to what happened in a school setting.

    Is it just me, or is there anyone else here who recalls those heady 1980 ish days of evangelical Christians objecting to school lessons?
    And surely I am not alone in enduring Mary Whitehouse in full battle cry?

    How did we as a country manage to negotiate from there to here ......For Christians?

    And is there any hope of a similar journey for other faith groups, equally upset?



    I dunno
    It s just that when @Boogie opened this thread, those days were what first sprung to mind

    No there is no 'hope' that Muslims will cease to be Muslims after 1400 years and counting to the next ice-age maximum in a hundred thousand years and beyond. How could they? Why would they? It has the best group survival characteristics of all human institutions.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    I am totally certain that was not what I meant.

    As I almost certainly think you know.

    Unless
    Maybe
    You might be saying that Christianity should not exist?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 9
    @Martin54

    Even agreeing that Islam has good survival skills, why do you regard homicidal opposition to controversial imagery as an aspect of the religion that neccessarily has to be part of what will neccessarily survive?

    There are Muslims in Saudi Arabia who think that fortune-tellers should be flogged. But there are equally devout Muslims in Turkey who, while probably disapproving of oracles, aren't pushing for them to be flogged.

    So there are variations in these things, and I don't quite see why the emergence of a laissiez-faire approach to so-called blasphenous art couldn't emerge over time.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    @stetson , so how do you think the uk is going to manage all this intergration -y , common understanding -ness then?
    Assuming that telling people to piss off isn’t a starting point
  • stetson wrote: »
    Ethne Alba wrote: »

    To refer back to Ms Whitehouse et al, it s worth a look to read up what went on there. And for how long. In no way were people told to suck it up. God bless Prince Charles, he even sent his support for the festival of light....
    And
    The Outraged Evangelical London Parents was a thing too

    Istm that we have short memories

    I think TurquoiseTastic might have meant that Whitehouse was mocked by people who were left-wing, liberal, hipsters, etc. And that a lot of the people who currently fit those labels(including surviving veterans of the 1970s battles) are now part of the contingent arguing on progressive grounds for suppression of anti-Muslim material.

    Whitehouse for me is someone from another era, who I know mostly through second-hand accounts and a snippet or two of news footage. To use some more current personalities, I'd wager that when John Cleese defended Life Of Brian against Malcolm Muggeridge, a hefty majority of the people who were a) born after 1945, b) humanities graduates, and c) Labour voters, were cheering for Cleese, and thought Muggeridge was just a useless old fossil who needed to piss off.

    Well perhaps I am the wrong age. Growing up in the 1980s Mary Whitehouse seemed to be a stock figure of fun, a shorthand for "stupid outdated religious people". I'm prepared to accept that things may have been different in the 1970s.

    Certainly the only times I've ever seen that Cleese clip (which dates from roughly the same time) rebroadcast it seems to be presented from a "Cleese is obviously right, imagine that there used to be bonkers people like this old guy wossname" perspective.

    I think the 60s/70s veterans are by and large not the same people arguing for suppression of anti-Muslim material. I think they would tend to back Charlie Hebdo and the Danish cartoonists. In a way they have become fossils themselves - certainly John Cleese now seems almost as pompous as Malcolm Muggeridge did then.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Ethne Alba wrote: »

    To refer back to Ms Whitehouse et al, it s worth a look to read up what went on there. And for how long. In no way were people told to suck it up. God bless Prince Charles, he even sent his support for the festival of light....
    And
    The Outraged Evangelical London Parents was a thing too

    Istm that we have short memories

    I think TurquoiseTastic might have meant that Whitehouse was mocked by people who were left-wing, liberal, hipsters, etc. And that a lot of the people who currently fit those labels(including surviving veterans of the 1970s battles) are now part of the contingent arguing on progressive grounds for suppression of anti-Muslim material.

    Whitehouse for me is someone from another era, who I know mostly through second-hand accounts and a snippet or two of news footage. To use some more current personalities, I'd wager that when John Cleese defended Life Of Brian against Malcolm Muggeridge, a hefty majority of the people who were a) born after 1945, b) humanities graduates, and c) Labour voters, were cheering for Cleese, and thought Muggeridge was just a useless old fossil who needed to piss off.

    Well perhaps I am the wrong age. Growing up in the 1980s Mary Whitehouse seemed to be a stock figure of fun, a shorthand for "stupid outdated religious people". I'm prepared to accept that things may have been different in the 1970s.

    Certainly the only times I've ever seen that Cleese clip (which dates from roughly the same time) rebroadcast it seems to be presented from a "Cleese is obviously right, imagine that there used to be bonkers people like this old guy wossname" perspective.

    I think the 60s/70s veterans are by and large not the same people arguing for suppression of anti-Muslim material. I think they would tend to back Charlie Hebdo and the Danish cartoonists. In a way they have become fossils themselves - certainly John Cleese now seems almost as pompous as Malcolm Muggeridge did then.

    Yes, I came of political age in the 1980s, and granted several degrees removed from the UK, but it almost always seemed to me that Whitehouse was held in general contempt by the chattering classes and that section of the public who followed their line of thinking.

    And going back much earlier, I believe the Pythons' Tory Housewives Clean-Up Campaign was a shot at Whitehouse, and was likely quite well-received by its target audience.

    The only thing I can remember seeing in the 80s or early 90s defending Whitehouse was by a columnist in the New Statesman(Sean French?), who seemed aware that he was expressing an unpopular opinion for his milieu.

    Point taken that a lot of the right-to-offend vets of the 70s are probably also pro-Hebdo. Though I wonder if that's because they're trying to be consistent over time, or if it's because they're now crotchety old fogies who are paranoid about Islam.

    Possible test case: When Texas was hit by lethal floods a few years back, the Hebdo ran a cover reading "There is a God!", with a cartoon of neo-nazis doing the Hitler salute while drowning. The joke being: "Who cares? Texas is just full of racist assholes anyway."

    If a similar tragedy hit some right-wing part of the UK and the Hebdo responded the same way, I wonder what some of our aging free-speech liberals would think about that.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Oh I get the upset caused.
    Totally.

    But in public , doesn’t such behaviour comes under public order / dis order action?

    Whilst the Opening Post was talking about a specific faith groups reaction after being upset about action in a school.

    To refer back to Ms Whitehouse et al, it s worth a look to read up what went on there. And for how long. In no way were people told to suck it up. God bless Prince Charles, he even sent his support for the festival of light....
    And
    The Outraged Evangelical London Parents was a thing too

    Istm that we have short memories

    As I remember it, there was the occasional but very prominent news item featuring Mary Whitehouse - much laughter at her and hers by the general media and the general public. Some support from people in dog-collars and 'Outraged of Islington', and a few snarky, unimpressive interviews involving Pythons and aforementioned dog-collar types. There was TV time and press space for the League of Decency types to voice their complaints, which they did. And there was equal right of reply for people to share the same sofa to put their point across. There were sharp exchanges, but it was done relatively civilly. As I remember it. As I also remember it, boobs were still on show on page 3, Hot Gossip still gyrated their way through Top of the Pops, 'Life of Brian' still screened', and things went on much as before.

  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Thanking the good Lord above that we ve all moved on from those days. For some evangelicals though they were very invested.

    As indicated above in the 70s there was a massive movement away from an easy acceptance of an embedded one true almost state religion. To more of an individualist belief system. Where Christians had to take their chances along with everything else

    Do you think there a chance that other faith groups can make that journey?

    I sure as heck hope so.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    I am totally certain that was not what I meant.

    As I almost certainly think you know.

    Unless
    Maybe
    You might be saying that Christianity should not exist?

    I'm sorry @Ethne Alba. I apologize. I am a tad literal minded I'm afraid; and I'm afraid you overestimate me. The more I look at my response to your hope, the more I regret it.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    @Martin54

    Even agreeing that Islam has good survival skills, why do you regard homicidal opposition to controversial imagery as an aspect of the religion that neccessarily has to be part of what will neccessarily survive?

    There are Muslims in Saudi Arabia who think that fortune-tellers should be flogged. But there are equally devout Muslims in Turkey who, while probably disapproving of oracles, aren't pushing for them to be flogged.

    So there are variations in these things, and I don't quite see why the emergence of a laissiez-faire approach to so-called blasphenous art couldn't emerge over time.

    I imagine you don't have to go far out of Istanbul, Antalya or Ankara for it to be very unwise to be a fortune teller. Or an evangelical.

    I don't see how a laissez-faire approach to blasphemous so-called art could emerge in free Muslim culture.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    @Martin54 , we ‘re good!
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Ethne Alba wrote: »

    To refer back to Ms Whitehouse et al, it s worth a look to read up what went on there. And for how long. In no way were people told to suck it up. God bless Prince Charles, he even sent his support for the festival of light....
    And
    The Outraged Evangelical London Parents was a thing too

    Istm that we have short memories

    I think TurquoiseTastic might have meant that Whitehouse was mocked by people who were left-wing, liberal, hipsters, etc. And that a lot of the people who currently fit those labels(including surviving veterans of the 1970s battles) are now part of the contingent arguing on progressive grounds for suppression of anti-Muslim material.

    Whitehouse for me is someone from another era, who I know mostly through second-hand accounts and a snippet or two of news footage. To use some more current personalities, I'd wager that when John Cleese defended Life Of Brian against Malcolm Muggeridge, a hefty majority of the people who were a) born after 1945, b) humanities graduates, and c) Labour voters, were cheering for Cleese, and thought Muggeridge was just a useless old fossil who needed to piss off.

    I only know her through Pink Floyd.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    I only know her through Pink Floyd.

    I believe there were a few digs made at her by members of the British artistic sector. In addition to the Pythons' aforementioned "Tory Housewives Clean-Up Campaign", the TV show Til Death Do Us Part(ur-text for All In The Family) once showed a copy of a book she wrote burning in a fire. And there was apparently a comedy troupe called The Mary Whitehouse Experience, formed in the late-80s.

    Whitehouse was a member of Moral Re-Armament, the group most prominent in North America for the Up With People musical show.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited April 11
    But Moral Re-Armament was much older than that - wasn't its major figure Frank Buchman in the 1930s?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    But Moral Re-Armament was much older than that - wasn't its major figure Frank Buchman in the 1930s?

    Indeed. Did I imply otherwise?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Perhaps my Up With People reference suggested I thought they weren't famous in the USA until that show started up in the 60s?

    Let me re-phrase by saying that UWP is probably the best remembered thing about American Moral Re-Armament today, given that the movement as a whole is now almost entirely off the radar. I don't know how UWP's profile compares with that of the original movement, back in its heyday.

    I also don't know to what extent people connect the two movements. According to what I've been reading on the internet, UWP was founded by the leader of American MRA, but the two organizations were technically separate.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited April 11
    From a UK perspective I've never heard of UWP - I know of Moral Re-Armament only because I am a Christianity nerd-lite and happened across a (very old) second-hand book called "Good God, It Works!" by a member of the movement when I was at university. I would agree that the whole movement is now off-the-radar.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I would agree that the whole movement is now off-the-radar.

    I probably should have clarified in my last post that MRA is off the radar under that name. They apparently survive as something called Initiatives Of Change, which, going by their website, seem to be presenting themselves as a vaguely progressive NGO. No idea how big or active they are.

    The one and only time I have ever knowingly met a member of MRA was in the early 2000s, when I was helping a Korean student prepare her English-language resume for a job with an Asian airline(Singapore, IIRC). She listed Moral Re-Armament as a group she had been involved with in high school. I speculated that, post-9/11, "Moral Re-Armament" might not be the best name to get you in the good graces of an airline, but she was sure it would be okay. (And Singapore strikes me as the kind of place where people would know about, and generally approve of, that particular organization.)

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Up With People, 1965

    The title tune is actually kinda catchy.

    The actor Glenn Close was a member of both MRA and Up With People. Apparently, she considers it a cult.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Or in schools? The free speech brigade seem to ignore context.

    I was twelve when our rather stern headmaster was our substitute English teacher for the day. We were reading "Educating Rita" in class, and sure enough, about five minutes in, one of my classmates got the first "fuck" of the day. We could see a look of mild panic in his eyes as he realized that he was about to be called on to say "fuck" in front of the headmaster, but he went for it. At the end of the class, the headmaster congratulated us for reading the script as written, and neither getting silly about the word, nor trying to bowdlerize it.

    That anecdote aside, I don't think you are fairly characterizing Russ's position. His position certainly admits subcultures (such as schools and other children's activities) where coarse language isn't acceptable. I think his "free speech" challenge might be more closely exemplified by looking at the example of a parent who is walking with their children down the public High Street, and objects to crude language on a passer-by's t-shirt, or objects to the language that a group of teens chatting on a park bench are using, because their children might see / hear it.

    This story reminds me of the time I interned in a very conservative town in Southwest Minnesota. There were three churches there: Roman Catholic, Reformed and Lutheran.

    At the time the public high school was putting on Godspell. I got involved because there were a few questions about the context of the show. I had performed in a Godspell production when I was in college, so I was the "religious advisor."

    The Jesus character was the son of the Reformed minister. As we were getting to the night of the dress rehearsal, a teacher from the school objected to the line where Jesus damns the Pharisees for all time. Her reasoning was Christ would never say damn, and besides a pastor's kid should never swear. The young man came to me for advice. He wanted to say the line as it was written because he understood it was a crucial point in the production, I pointed out that on stage no one is going to stop him from saying what he wants to say.

    The first night of the production, the young man said it as it was written. "Damn." Other than an upset teacher there was no lightning bolt that struck the kid. He was advised not to say it again. The second night, though, he said it again. "Damn." The teacher walked out. Nothing else was said. The third and fourth nights there was no problem. Even the kid's father, the Reformed pastor, came out and said it had to be played out as written.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 11
    ^ And I would assume "damn" is only improper when it's used by humans in phrases like "God damn you", 'cuz it means that the speaker is presuming to speak on behalf of God about who He wants to damn.

    One would think that Jesus, being God, is entitled to use the phrase as He sees fit.
  • By similar reasoning the musical would have had to be called ***spell and the pastor's son would have been playing *****
  • Although of course a really conservative Reformed group might object to anyone portraying Jesus as a breach of the second commandment, as well as objecting to all forms of stage performance per se.
Sign In or Register to comment.